Kusuma Manjari Sahoo And vs Life Insurance Corporation .... Opp. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2088 Ori

Orissa High Court

Kusuma Manjari Sahoo And vs Life Insurance Corporation .... Opp. ... on 9 March, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  WP(C) No.1731 of 2025
            Kusuma Manjari Sahoo and            ....                                 Petitioners
            Ors.
                                                                     Represented by Adv.-
                                                                       Ms. R. Sinha, Adv.
                                                -versus-
            Life Insurance Corporation          ....                            Opp. Parties
            Of India, BBSR and Anr.                                 Represented by Adv.-
                                                                    Mr. S. Pattanaik, Adv.
                                                                            for OPs.1 & 2
            CORAM:
                         JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
                         JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                                              ORDER

09.03.2026

Order No.

06. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 has said as under:

"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard.

3. Issue notice.

4. Requisites for issuance of notice to the opposite parties by Registered Post/Speed Post with AD shall be filed by 30th January, 2025.

5. Put up this matter on l3th March, 2025 enclosing tracking report of the Postal Department.

Sd/ (K. R. Mohapatra) Judge Sd/-

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

IA NO.973 0F 2025

1. Issue notice as above.

2. Accept one set of process fee.

3. Considering the submission made by Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that till the next date, no coercive action pursuant to the possession notice dated 3rd January, 2025 (Annexure-7) issued by the Authorized Officer, LIC Housing Financing Limited, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 shall be taken against the Petitioners subject to deposit of Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs) before Opposite Party No.2 within a period of one month in two equal installments.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Sd/-

(K. R. Mohapatra) Judge Sd/-

(S.K. Mishra) Judge"

2. Subsequently, this Bench also passed an order on 17.02.2026 which has the following text:

"Both sides, having argued the matter for some time, are now agreeable to the suggestion of this Court that they sit across the table and explore the possibilities of resolving their differences. The LIC shall fix a date on which both parties shall meet, on 06.03.2026, and hopefully arrive at a positive outcome. This exercise shall be undertaken provided the Petitioners pay all twelve installments on or before that date, failing which the Petition shall run the risk of dismissal on that ground.

2. Call this matter on 06.03.2026.

Subject to the above, the interim order passed earlier shall continue."

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that already a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has been remitted to the loan account, and that because of financial difficulty, a period of two months be granted for making good the installments that have fallen due. She also highlights the difficulty which her clients are facing. Learned counsel appearing for the OP-LIC opposes the application contending that relaxation cannot

be granted merely for askens and that Petitioners have to show bona fide by complying with the interim orders made earlier.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are convinced that Petitioners happen to be bona fide borrowers, and that may be because of pleaded financial difficulty now seeking extension of the period through this application, which is supported by an affidavit. Such bona fide borrowers cannot be put to prejudice, especially when a huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is already remitted in terms of our orders. No prejudice to be caused to the other side, since extension of the period will also carry interest. If application is rejected, Petitioners would be put to a manifest injustice and eminent hardship.

In the above circumstance, the application having been favoured, an extension through two more months is accorded subject to the condition that if benefit of this extension is not availed, the Petition runs risk of dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

With the above observations interim order would continue.

Call this matter after eight weeks.

(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge

Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO (Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge Date: 10-Mar-2026 10:17:28 Prasant